Standing Committee A

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Nicholas Winterton: May I express the hope that every member of Standing Committee A had an enjoyable Easter recess; that it was restful; and that you have come back to this hothouse of debate duly recharged and ready for the fray for the next five weeks before we break again for the Whitsun spring bank holiday recess. We had made relatively good progress by the last sitting.

Clause 39

Driver training

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 97, in page 46, line 39, leave out subsection (3).

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 99, in schedule 5, page 99, leave out lines 33 to 35.
No. 100, in schedule 5, page 102, leave out lines 17 to 19.
No. 101, in schedule 5, page 106, leave out lines 30 and 31.
No. 102, in schedule 5, page 108, leave out lines 34 to 36.
No. 98, in clause 41, page 48, line 2, leave out from ‘assistants' to end of line 4.

Stephen Hammond: I welcome you back to the Chair, Sir Nicholas, and I trust that I can say on behalf of the Committee that I hope that you had a good and restful recess as well.
Our next subject is a series of clauses on driving instructors and driver training. Amendment No. 97, which I and my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) tabled, deals with the power to make available information on people who provide courses and give instruction. The amendments selected with it, to schedule 5 and clause 41, are all to the same effect, which is to prevent the Secretary of State or the Minister taking powers to disclose the personal details of those persons who are registered.
I guess that the Minister will say that the powers are necessary for transparency and so on. However, many members of the Committee will have been briefed by the Driving Instructors Association, which represents more than 13,000 driving instructors and is consulted regularly by the Department for Transport, the Driving Standards Agency, the Driver Vehicle Testing Agency, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. It is a member also of the Department for Transport’s advisory group on testing and training. Therefore, it is interesting to hear what the DIA has to say.
The DIA is quite concerned that unless the amendments are accepted we will single out driving instructors and deprive them of some of the normal rights to privacy that are afforded to other citizens under the Data Protection Act 1998. It claims—and based on our research, we would agree—that it can find no parallel in statute to the draconian use of such mandatory disclosure of personal information. I wonder whether, when the Minister responds, he will be able to satisfy us that he has used such disclosure elsewhere.
It is a concern that a huge amount of information would be requested. For instance, the DIA believes—again, it is a concern that I share—that there would be some clear human rights implications, and certainly under article 8 of the European convention on the right to respect for private and family life. If the amendments are not accepted, much of that privacy will be affected. Therefore, the Secretary of State’s statement that the Bill is compatible with the convention on human rights must be challenged.
The Government set out in their road safety strategy, “Tomorrow’s Roads—Safer for Everyone” the objective of ensuring that performance and other information was made available to the public to “empower customers” and to
“encourage intelligent use of driving instruction”.
The message, therefore, is that that could have been more easily achieved by aiming for voluntary consent rather than including in the Bill the need to disclose such personal information. The information commissioner has said that it would have been possible to look for a voluntary disclosure of the information on certificates rather than statutory disclosure.
Our amendment would give back some protection to the driving instructors. I know that a number of them are concerned that the enforced publication of their home addresses may result in a substantial invasion of their privacy. As many as 98 of the UK driving school businesses are sole traders or franchises. In both cases they are either based at their home address or their home address will be published under the Bill. Therefore, they might be worried about being contacted by people wishing to get information out of them unreasonably by extortion or to steal their vehicles, which is a ready concern. Publishing such information is unnecessary. The fact that someone has attained the necessary qualifications is all that needs to be published on a certificate; there is no need for the extra disclosure.

Stephen Ladyman: Like the rest of the Committee, I hope that you had a good Easter, Sir Nicholas. You will not be surprised to learn that I shall advise the Committee to resist the amendments. There are legitimate concerns that driving instructors might have about the release of information about them. Obviously, I understand that they would be concerned if personal information were released. That clearly is not our intention. I can also see that they might have legitimate concerns if we published raw data about their performance that was out of context and did not enable consumers to make sensible choices. That is clearly not our intention. We want to be able to provide objective information to individuals who wish to purchase training so that they can ensure that they do so from an appropriate person.
I readily accept that the approved driving instructors and some of the people who represent them have not felt that the Driving Standards Agency has properly engaged with them on some issues in the past. I have spoken to the new chief executive about that and she and I are determined to put that right and to have a much better relationship with those organisations and with approved driving instructors in the future. We want to take them with us and to ensure that they understand why we are attempting to drive the sector forward and how we intend to do it.
We intend that any information we publish should be thoroughly discussed with all sides of the industry, including the organisations mentioned by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). We want to construct a way of publishing that data that takes account of people’s very real concerns. As far as personal information is concerned, those individuals already enjoy the protection of the Data Protection Act. Nothing in the Bill will take that right from them. 
The amendments would make the whole clause redundant. Its purpose is to give us an enabling power so that, when we and the industry devise the best way of producing statistics on performance, people can make good judgments about who is good and who is bad, who is effective and who is ineffective, and who is providing the best training service. We want to make that information publicly available so that people can make those choices. If the amendments were accepted, we would not be able to provide that information. We would not even be able to provide information about the availability of trainer assistants who are there to help people who are deaf or have other special needs and require the services of an assistant when they are training to drive. It seems entirely reasonable that we put that information in the public domain. The Driving Standards Agency is collecting it anyway, and it is appropriate that we make it available to the public, but in a form that the public can understand and that does not treat unfairly a driving instructor who concentrates on more difficult cases. The information will need to be published in context.
I give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we will consult thoroughly on what the information will consist of, how it will be published and in what context. In order to utilise the power we will, at some point, have to come back to the House for its approval of the necessary regulations. I hope that, with that promise and assurance, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment and the Committee will allow clause 39 to stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister. We got a number of important assurances from him, including that while he is Minister this Act will not be used to deny the right of driving instructors to enjoy the protection of personal data provisions. I am still concerned that if my amendments are not accepted it will be possible for driving instructors’ personal details to be published. I will need to look further at the matter and take further advice.
I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance that there will be further consultation. As he is well aware, it has been a long-running concern of the DIA that it is not suitably consulted by the DSA. The concern was initially that raw data on driving examinations would be passed on. Indeed, a series of inquiries has shown, in data for individual driving instructors, that some of the fault markings in tests have not been as accurate as one would have hoped. I reserve the right to return to the matter on Report if I am not satisfied by legal advice on the disclosure of personal information, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Driving instruction

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 106, line 27, after ‘conducted' insert
‘, conditions which must be satisfied during the currency of an appointment, the charging of reasonable fees in respect of applications for appointment or appointments or in connection with any examination or assessment which may be required before appointment or during the currency of any appointment'.
No. 9, in page 113, line 8, after ‘evidencing' insert
‘the passing of an examination (or part of an examination) required by regulations under section 132 of this Act or'.
No. 10, in page 113, line 15, after ‘evidencing' insert
‘the passing of an examination (or part of an examination) required by regulations under section 132 of this Act or'.— [Dr. Ladyman.]

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Stephen Hammondrose—

Nicholas Winterton: I have already put the question. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to speak to schedule 5, he should have stood up a little faster.

Clause 41

Tests: approved assistants
4.45 pm

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 47, line 29, leave out ‘, understanding'.
I shall try to be faster, Sir Nicholas, but you were going at such a speed, it hardly gave us a chance to speak. I shall rise to my feet a little quicker in future. We seem to have sped through our proceedings.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman needs to lose a pound or two.

Stephen Hammond: That is the problem with the recess, of course. I am sure that it applies to everyone in Committee.
Our concern is simple. We understand entirely the need for approved test assistants, although we want to ensure that they are subject to proper scrutiny. Had I risen to my feet a little quicker, I would have liked to raise a number of issues about test assistants and some of the tables in schedule 5 that relate to them.
Amendment No. 86 is quite specific. It deals with subsection (2) and some of the circumstances in which a test assistant may be used. We have little difficulty with support being given to those who have difficulty hearing, but we are considerably concerned about the word “understanding”. If someone does not understand what is said to them, does that mean that they might fail to understand road signs, or various other instructions that may be given?
The amendment is a probing one. We want the Minister to explain the Government’s thinking in referring to someone who may have difficulty understanding questions or instructions in the relevant tests—factors that will clearly be applicable on the road as well. Is what is meant a lack of understanding of language, learning difficulties or mental impairment? We seek clarification from the Minister on exactly which circumstances someone’s lack of or difficulty in understanding would be warranted. I look forward to his response.

Stephen Ladyman: I, at least, appreciate the speed with which you go through the amendments, Sir Nicholas.
I hope that I can give the hon. Member for Wimbledon the assurance he seeks. When one is sitting the driving test, there are a number of instructions that the person setting the test has to give about the test itself. It is only right, in our view, that a person should have any assistance they need in order to understand those instructions. If they are hearing impaired, they need to have those instructions relayed in such a way that they can understand them, so someone who understands sign language would need to be made available. Equally, if a person does not speak English or Welsh—the languages in which we can provide the driving test—it may be necessary to have a translator.
The lack of comprehension that a person is allowed relates to the instructions for the test itself, not the content of the test or the nature of road signs. It is not possible to have an assistant translate a road sign; one needs to be able to understand a road sign oneself and act accordingly. The assistant will be present to help the individual only with the mechanism of the test, not with the skills on which one is being tested. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will be happy to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond: With the Minister’s clarification—as helpful as ever—about the mechanism of the test, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Enforcement authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson: Sir Nicholas, I am also pleased to see that you have obviously had a restful Easter and returned supercharged.
I shall not delay the Committee with debate on this clause, but I should just like some clarification. The clause seems sensible, but I should like the Minister to clarify who is in charge. What is the order of command between the DVLA, district councils, and county councils, which have now been brought in where there are two-tier authorities? The measure is sensible, but I am not clear about how it will work in practice. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the matter.

Stephen Ladyman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the DVLA will not replace the police and trading standards officers. The idea is that in future the DVLA will work with them as a joint enforcement team. As he suggests, it is a sensible measure. It removes a burden on the police; it will allow the DVLA to take enforcement action in its own right, rather than reporting matters to the police for them to take action on its behalf; and it will resolve an anomaly whereby trading standards officers possess the power of enforcement if they are employed by district councils, but do not if they are employed by county councils. In future, officers employed by county councils will possess the power, too. The intention is that all three—the police, the DVLA and trading standards officers—will work jointly.

Owen Paterson: Where there are two tiers—a county council and a district council—which will be the lead authority dealing with the DVLA?

Stephen Ladyman: I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman. My assumption is that it will be the senior tier, the county council, but I shall write to him to clarify that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Registration plates

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson: Again, we do not have any great disagreement with this clause, but I should like the Minister to declare what constitutes a legal number plate, what qualifies as a number plate and what marks are allowed. There has been much press controversy about European Union flags being allowed, but not Union jacks and crosses of St. George—relevant to next week. What constitutes a legal number plate? Will the Minister have any discretion over this matter, or will it become entirely a Commission responsibility?

Nicholas Winterton: The Chairman is interested too.

Stephen Ladyman: I have no doubt that the Chairman is interested in all parts of the Bill.
All technical matters—the typeface, colour, dimensions, spacing and so on—to do with the appearance of number plates are set out in a British standard, and I would be happy to make that information available to the hon. Gentleman. I am not certain about who decides whether an EU flag or some other symbol can be on a number plate, but I shall write to the Committee and give chapter and verse on who has responsibility for that.
To my horror, I discovered that some people like to hang gimmick number plates on their bedroom wall. I have absolutely no idea why anybody would want a gimmick number plate under any circumstances or why they would want to display it, but apparently there is some trade in such things. I suspect the truth is that people have a number plate that conforms to the British standard when they have their MOT test, but replace it immediately afterwards with a gimmick number plate that uses different typefaces and spacing and therefore spells something.
The purpose of the clause is to insist that in future when people buy a gimmick number plate it is clearly marked as such and therefore cannot be used as a substitute for a real one when the person thinks nobody is watching. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about flags and other markings.

Henry Bellingham: We have all seen gimmicky number plates, which are becoming more prevalent. I noted four in the past month: L4RRY, B4RRY, D3GSY and S3XY—or Larry, Barry, Degsy and Sexy. As the Minister says, people use different typefaces, put in a black dot for the screw and turn numbers into letters. It brings a certain amount of pleasure and amusement to quite a few people, but I would not dream of having such a number plate, as it would be more likely to attract the attention of the police or someone else like that. What will the Minister do about people who have such number plates? Will the police be empowered to stop them? Will traffic wardens be empowered to report them? What measures will be taken?

Stephen Ladyman: The police already have powers to stop individuals who have changed their number plate in such a way that it no longer conforms to the standard. I would not for one second want to discourage people from having personalised number plates. Indeed, the DVLA makes a good deal of money for the taxpayer from auctioning them, and if anybody named Mr. Singh or Dr. Singh is listening to our debate, I can tell them that the forthcoming DVLA auction will include the number plate 51NGH and various extensions of that. I hope that it will raise a great deal of money for the British taxpayer.
However, the numbers must look like numbers, and the spacing needs to be such that it is clear which part of the plate is numbers and which part is letters. If anybody has played around with their number plate in such a way as to make it difficult to read, or if it is in any way not obvious what the original number plate was, the police should take enforcement action against them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Particulars to be included in vehicles register

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson: I understand that the intention is to tighten up on various practices, particularly fiddling with odometers, or clocking, which obviously is a serious problem. The Conservatives support the Government’s attempts to ensure accurate data for people who are purchasing a motor car.
The clause raises the question of the accuracy of DVLA data, and I do not envy the DVLA in its task. It wrote to a member of the public giving information from its database in March last year. It holds in excess of 36 million vehicle records and 47 million driver records, and reckons that 68 per cent. of those records are correct in every detail and that 22 per cent. contain spelling mistakes in name, address, details or postcode. It considers those to be minor errors which do not prevent mail from being delivered or prevent the police or manufacturers from tracing vehicles. It reckons that that amounted to a 90 per cent. traceability level from the information on the vehicle database. It made the point that it is totally dependent on the motoring public for much of its information.
It is not difficult to work out that with 36 million vehicle records, 47 million driver records and its best accuracy level of 97.5 per cent., 900,000 vehicle records and 1.175 million driver records must be inaccurate. With a perfect record rate of 68 per cent., 11.52 million vehicle records and 15.04 million driver records are not perfect. With a 90 per cent. traceability rate the figures are even easier to work out: 3.6 million vehicle records and 4.7 million driver records are not traceable.
I do not envy the DVLA in trying to keep track of those records, but I should like to know the Minister’s thoughts on how the system can be tightened up because there are press reports of people deliberately driving around with inaccurate number plates. One of my constituents was the proud possessor of an ancient series 1 Cortina which, on a good day when it was warmed up, might have got as far as Shrewsbury—perhaps I am being rude about the car. He was clocked three times for breach of the congestion charge and I had to take the matter to the Mayor because it was obvious that someone had used his registration number. There are anecdotal records of a substantial number of people driving around deliberately using illegal and inaccurate number plates to avoid the congestion charge, speeding fines and so on. That seems to be a growing trend, although I have no figures on it.
What is the Minister’s opinion on the lessons that could be learned from other countries? I was recently in Germany where there is a tight system under which the number plate follows the owner. When people buy a new car, they must hand over the documents for their insurance and for their equivalent of the council tax, which is a local tax showing their domicile, which then attracts the three letters—one letter in large towns— showing where the owner lives. That may be bad luck on the Singhs who are looking forward to buying a number plate at auction, because that system wipes out personalised number plates. Also, importantly, there is the MOT test—in Germany it is a TUV—when the vehicle is three years or more old. When the vehicle is sold the number is surrendered and a new number is created for the new owner. A similar system operates in America, which I have not yet inspected, where each number plate includes an insurance sticker and an annual sticker and is handed out by the state authority.
Our current system, as the lady from the DVLA said, depends entirely on the motoring public for information and is not 100 per cent. accurate. I repeat that I do not envy the DVLA its job, but if we are to have proper enforcement and to clamp down on the hard core of really bad drivers we must have an accurate database, and there are lessons to be learned from the German and American systems. I was in Sweden recently where the road pricing scheme in Stockholm is similar to that in Germany. It simply cannot work without accurate data.
The Government are all over the shop on road pricing and if we are ever to have a new road pricing scheme it must have a cast iron, accurate database. We fully support the Government’s aim to clamp down on the hard core, but that seems to be extremely difficult when the current system is not as watertight as it might be and as I am told it is in other countries. I should like to hear the Minister’s comments on that, but in general we support the clause and its attempt to tighten up on inaccurate mileage on second-hand cars.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman deals with an important issue. I am very proud of the integrity of the DVLA database. The DVLA team do a fantastic job, given the sheer volume of people and vehicles that they have to register. It is true that inaccuracies get into the system and there are a number of ways of dealing with that. First we should continuously compare the information that is recorded on each of the DVLA databases to see how we can improve our data. Secondly, as part of the annual re-registration process, we hope that honest motorists will correct any mistakes in documents from the DVLA and send back the information so that the DVLA’s database can be updated.
As for those motorists who are out to cheat the system and have cloned a vehicle, which sounds as if it were the case with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, or who are trying to avoid their liabilities in some other way, we have to work very closely with the police to try to stop them. We can now immobilise vehicles when they turn out to have irregularities. We have made available to the police not only the registration database, but the insurance database. There is increasing use of automatic number plate recognition systems, which is another reason, to refer back to the point that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) made on the last clause, why it is important to have readable number plates where numbers are numbers and letters are letters and they all are properly spaced.
As automatic number plate reading systems are increasingly available to the police they can instantly check whether a car is registered, whether the tax disk is up to date and whether the car is insured. We need to work with the police to stop more cars and to impound them if there are any irregularities. Once we start to do that more frequently, and once people start to realise that the consequence of having inaccurate data on the DVLA database at best seriously inconveniences them while they put it right and at worst means that their car is confiscated and they are taken through the courts, I have no doubt that there will be a further improvement in the system.
Like the hon. Gentleman, one of the things I did during the recess was to visit Stockholm to see its road pricing system. Even there I am afraid that the records are not 100 per cent. and a number of individuals who want to cheat the Stockholm road pricing system have started to stick a little sun visor over the top of their number plate which effectively blocks the camera’s downward view of it. There are dishonest people in every society, even in those well ordered Scandinavian societies like Sweden, who will try to cheat the system. We must try to be one step ahead of such people, which is one reason why we have a trial at the moment of electronic tagging of number plates. We are looking at a number of initiatives using microchips and other systems that will perhaps enable us to go to the next level of security at some point in the future and get that database much closer to the 100 per cent. where we need it to be.

Owen Paterson: I was told that 18,000 people in the Stockholm area pay no taxes, live outside the law and are driving around. No system is perfect. But does the Minister think there are merits in the system that I have described, where there is effectively an annual check? It is not possible to get a sticker for a number plate in the States without insurance. The TUV certificate and insurance have to be presented in Germany. Although what the Minister describes is very sensible and it must help with the titanic task of the DVLA in tracking this huge number of vehicles, in Germany there is an annual check on every vehicle, which is administered locally and the information passed on to the central database. Does the Minister not think that that would have some merit?

Stephen Ladyman: There is an annual check in this country as well. When a person buys vehicle excise duty he has to fill in the appropriate forms and make contact with the DVLA. If the vehicle is more than three years old, there is a physical check on it when it is taken for its MOT test. One of the things that an MOT tester is expected to do is to check the number plate and ensure that it conforms with expectations.
There are checks, but there are equally people who cheat them. As the hon. Gentleman said, 18,000 people in the Stockholm area do not pay any form of taxes and are trying to cheat the system. I cannot remember off-hand exactly how many cars use the Stockholm congestion charging system, but I think that it is only about 300,000.

Owen Paterson: It is 400,000.

Stephen Ladyman: Well, 400,000. If 18,000 of them are completely unregistered, that indicates that they are not achieving the level of accuracy that we are in this country with 34 million vehicles on our roads. Let us sing the praises of the DVLA for the excellent job that it is doing, while recognising that we can always do better. Our target must be as close as possible to 100 per cent. accuracy, and with future technologies coming on stream and closer co-operation with the police on enforcement, I hope that we can get to 100 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman is right: as we get closer to the day when we move to national road pricing, the incentive to cheat the system will get bigger and bigger. The system will have to be even more robust than it is now if it is to be a success.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

Disclosure to foreign authorities of licensing and registration information

Owen Paterson: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in clause 47, page 53, line 30, leave out from ‘outside the United Kingdom' and insert
‘that has ratified the Treaty on European Vehicle and Driving Licence Information System'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 72, in clause 47, page 53, line 40, leave out ‘outside the United Kingdom' and insert
‘that has ratified the Treaty on European Vehicle and Driving Licence Information System.'.

Owen Paterson: Our amendments are simple. They would limit the countries to which information can be divulged under the clause to those that have signed up to the European vehicle and driving licence information system treaty. As was said in another place, the clause appears to be drafted extremely widely. If its purpose is to allow ratification of the EUCARIS treaty, we have no objection. It is sensible that there is an exchange of information. We debated foreign vehicles and drivers and think that the treaty is a sensible measure. However, it is interesting that significant countries such as France, Italy and Spain have not signed the treaty yet. There are serious questions why the clause is so broad. Subsection (2)(b) states that information will be available to
“the authorities of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom with responsibility under the law of that country”.
That goes a lot wider than a requirement to sign up to the treaty, of which we approve.
We must also consider the circumstances that would justify the disclosure of information. To which departments in a foreign authority would information be disclosed? Are there reciprocal relationships with the country involved? What are the legal systems of the countries to which we might be giving information? What is the exact purpose for which information is being disclosed in each case? British drivers would like clear answers to those questions and an assurance of the intent of the foreign authorities that will receive information.
We frequently find our constituents tangled up in the Data Protection Act 1998. Where will they stand if information is given to a number of foreign authorities to which we are not bound by treaty? How can we ensure that the information is not then passed on from that country to a third country? We approve of the sensible exchange of information between European countries that have signed the treaty and will use it with that intention, but the clause as it stands is drafted too widely. We have serious concerns about why the information is being sought by some countries and what will happen to it.

Stephen Ladyman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to push what is clearly a probing amendment to a vote. The amendment would give rise to some strange anomalies. As he said, EUCARIS has so far been ratified only by the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg. We have not ratified it yet and will be able to do so only after the Bill has been passed.
The hon. Gentleman himself pointed out that the French have not ratified the treaty, so if we were to limit the exchange of information to countries within EUCARIS we would not be able to exchange information with the French authorities. My constituents in Kent are keen to move towards a system by which we can take enforcement action alongside the French authorities. It is in all our interests to have a slightly wider scope than EUCARIS. I understand that there is a significant problem with stolen vehicles being imported from Japan, which is outside the EUCARIS treaty. We need to be able to exchange information with the Japanese authorities to try to get to grips with the situation; that is in our interests and in theirs.
The hon. Gentleman clearly does not want information about British citizens to be released to countries that would have less stringent requirements in respect of data protection, for example. I can give him the absolute assurance that before engaging in a relationship with any foreign authority to exchange information about British citizens, the DVLA would first ensure that that country’s standards, its data protection legislation, the security of its systems and its procedure were at least a match for ours. However, in respect of our partners in the European Union and the key countries with which we would want to be able to exchange information, I have no doubt that we can come to arrangements that enable us to be confident that the information we provide is being properly treated, so that we can act accordingly.

Owen Paterson: Can the Minister tell us which countries he is thinking of that are currently outside the European treaty? He mentioned Japan, but are there other countries?

Stephen Ladyman: The key one is Japan, but any wealthy country where vehicles might be stolen and where there might be a trade in importing them is potentially a country with which we would want to have a relationship. We may need such a relationship with the United States in future, for example, but Japan is the most obvious country in the short term. I understand that Australia and New Zealand are countries with which it would be appropriate for us to have such relationships.

Owen Paterson: I now understand the clause better and I am satisfied with the Minister’s explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48

Trunk road picnic areas

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson: The Committee has made such rapid progress that we have caught up with a clause to which the Opposition tabled an amendment this afternoon. I am not sure about the status of that amendment, but perhaps I can describe it.

Nicholas Winterton: I announced at the beginning of our proceedings that we do not debate amendments so lately tabled, so I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment has no status whatever.

Owen Paterson: That is very sad—

Nicholas Winterton: Order. I want to be helpful to the Opposition. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of man, and particularly of the hon. Gentleman, to weave into this stand part debate a reference to what he wanted to do.

Owen Paterson: That was most helpful advice, Sir Nicholas, and I shall try to follow it closely.
The Government’s idea of having rest areas is interesting. We have received a briefing stating that a significant number of road crashes are caused by people going to sleep. I think that the figure is 17 per cent. We are not convinced that this measure is the right way to go about things, however, and we disagree quite strongly with the clause. There are better ways of skinning this cat.

Rosemary McKenna: Perhaps that is the point. Roadside service stations are quite often skinning people, instead of skinning the cat by providing service areas that are pretty much free, where people do not have to spend much money.

Owen Paterson: That was an interesting intervention. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) has joined us. We hope that the Liberal Democrat party had an enjoyable Easter as well.
We are not happy with the clause. The idea has been picked up from the continent. I was in France recently, looking at how the motorway system is run there. It is entirely different from the system here. The French have sold the lot; they have raised about €16 billion by selling off the right to maintain, manage and expand their motorway system for the next 50 or 60 years. The private companies have the finance and the staff to patrol and manage properly their rest areas.
That system is quite unlike ours. The measure would create substantial public expense; the Library said that it would cost £3 million to set up one of the proposed areas, and a further £300,000 for maintenance. We have doubts about whether it is wise to create areas that cannot be properly policed. If they do not have 24-hour CCTV coverage, the danger is that they will attract ne’er-do-wells, and they could rapidly become dangerous places at night. We should concentrate on improving existing services, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East (Rosemary McKenna) said.
There is also a disadvantage in creating too many exits and entries on our crowded motorways. We already have enough, and many traffic studies show that any exit or entry point creates traffic problems. Substantial amounts of traffic will be disrupted while the areas are built, and there will be yet more entry and exit points. We are also not at all convinced that without proper, 24-hour surveillance, such areas will work. They will need CCTV that operates all the time, and regular patrolling. If they are to have any refreshment facilities at all, they will become a sort of shadow area—possibly even worse than those with which the hon. Lady is unhappy—and they will be costly for the public purse. We do not want them to become attractive areas for rapists, thieves and burglars.
The answer is to improve existing motorway service areas. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about that. Our suggestion, on which the Minister might like to comment, recognises the merit of allowing the existing service areas to have picnic areas. We already have entry and exit points, 24-hour CCTV coverage and private money available to staff.

Rosemary McKenna: May I make it clear that I was not particularly attacking existing service stations? There should be alternatives where those with families can go without experiencing the pressure young children put on them to use the facilities and go to the various food outlets. There should be an alternative place where people with young families—or anyone else—can go to picnic without feeling pressurised into purchasing something.

Owen Paterson: That was a most helpful point and I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. I am proposing outdoor picnic areas on the sites. She might like to know that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 exclude the ability to have adverts for picnic areas in motorway service stations, which seems a complete anomaly. That would be a much cheaper solution, because private money is involved, and a much safer one, because such areas will be properly patrolled and looked after. On that basis, my party is not prepared to support clause 48, which we think is well intentioned but wrong.

Stephen Ladyman: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern that the type of picnic areas in question, which are modelled on the French aires, may not be suitable everywhere. Clearly, if not managed correctly, they would be a problem. However, this is an enabling power. It does not require us to open such sites up or put them all over the place. It is simply a power that will allow us to create picnic areas where we think them an appropriate way to provide an opportunity for motorists to have a break.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that motorway service stations are privately operated, but that motorway service operators do not necessarily want to build very expensive service stations everywhere. Might it not be possible that there are parts of the motorway network that currently do not have service stations? People often have to drive too far along those parts of the network because of the long distance between service stations, and where operators are not interested in investing in service stations, such a picnic area might be a cheaper way of providing people with the opportunity to take a break. It is intended that they will have 24-hour CCTV and basic facilities such as toilets and washrooms, which will be regularly cleaned and inspected, and there will a minimum level of security in these areas.
Is it possible that people might be able to use these picnic areas for nefarious purposes? Yes, I expect that that will be possible in certain circumstances. We need to design such areas accordingly, with that in mind, but I do not see what harm we can do by giving ourselves the power to create them where we think they will benefit road safety. I suspect that that process will be fairly limited; I would not have thought that very many of these facilities will be constructed at public expense, but I think that, where appropriate, they could be a good place for families to stop.
I note the hon. Gentleman’s idea about picnic areas associated with motorway service stations. I think that some motorway service stations already have them: I seem to recollect having a cup of coffee and a sandwich at a table outside a service station at various times during the summer months when I did not want to sit among the crowds inside.
I am already discussing the signage for motorway service stations with motorway service operators, and if it is necessary for us to think of some way of indicating that a picnic area is available at a service station, I am by all means prepared to consider such an idea. I am open-minded about that, as long as the signs do not distract drivers and have a negative impact on road safety.
However, as far as the clause is concerned, I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman would be fundamentally opposed to our creating such areas where they seem to be practical. I hope that he has not allowed himself to be nobbled by motorway service operators, who might view them as competition and therefore might have suggested to him that they should be stifled at birth. I am sure that that is not the motivation for his amendment, and I am equally sure that he will withdraw the amendment.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. We are not debating an amendment. We are debating clause stand part.

Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to you, Sir Nicholas, for reminding me of that. Opposition Front Benchers have been moving slowly on several fronts today, and this is one of them. Clearly, it is my view that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson: I am not entirely convinced by the Minister’s reply, but perhaps I can do a deal with him. If he will agree that he will seriously consider amending the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 to allow picnic area symbols to be put on service signs 2919.1, we will not oppose the clause.

Stephen Ladyman: It will probably stun the hon. Gentleman to learn that I do not keep traffic sign regulations in my head, and the particular traffic sign to which he refers is not springing to the front of my mind. Therefore, I am not prepared to give him a specific assurance about that sign, but I can assure him that I am open-minded about issues around signage for motorway service stations. I am already discussing such matters with the industry and my officials, and if we can add value by making it clear that a picnic area is available at a service station, I am prepared to consider it as long as it can be done in a way that will not have a negative impact on road safety by distracting drivers.

Owen Paterson: I am sure that you are aware, Sir Nicholas, that sign 2919.1 is the sign that indicates a motorway service area ahead—it is very simple. At present, it is not legal to announce that it includes a picnic area, but if the Minister is seriously prepared to consider that and amend the regulation, we will not oppose the clause.

Stephen Ladyman: I will look at the sign, and I will have an open mind when I do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49

Development potentially affecting traffic over level crossings

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: This is an entirely sensible clause, and we wish to commend it to the Committee. I am sure that the Minister will rise to commend it as well. It is perfectly sensible that network operators and the rail safety authority be consulted, particularly with regard to railway crossings, before the start of major developments such as distribution depots, which would result in an extreme or material increase in the volume of traffic or a change in its nature. The clause is entirely sensible and appropriate, and I commend it to the Committee.

Stephen Ladyman: I rise to indicate that clause 49 is not needed in the Bill and should not stand part, and that I shall offer the same advice about clauses 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55. This group of clauses deals with issues around level crossings, most of which will be covered by the Government’s new clause, which I shall propose when we come to clause 53, if you allow me to do so, Sir Nicholas.
The issue in this clause is indicative of much that is in the group of clauses, which was inserted in the Lords, in that it is covered by existing legislation. The powers and the responsibilities already exist. There is already a requirement for appropriate consultation to take place when developments are proposed near a level crossing. Clause 49 is therefore unnecessary; indeed, all the clauses to which I am referring are unnecessary if the Committee is prepared to consider Government new clause 30 in their place.

Nicholas Winterton: Do you wish to comment on the matter that the Minister has raised, Mr. Hammond?

Stephen Hammond: Not particularly, Sir Nicholas, other than to say that I disagree.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 49 disagreed to.

Clause 50

Increase of penalties for failure to comply with traffic lights at level crossings

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 54, line 31, leave out ‘six' and insert ‘twelve'.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 75, in page 54, line 32, leave out from ‘shall' to end of line 33 and insert
‘be disqualified for not less than twelve months.'.
No. 76, in clause 51, page 54, line 41, leave out from ‘conviction' to ‘to' in line 42.

Stephen Hammond: This clause relates to the most important and necessary road safety development. Anyone who is seriously interested in road safety will not and cannot oppose the clause. Anyone who has taken a briefing from Network Rail will have seen that the incidence of this offence on the railway network is increasing. It poses a threat to other drivers on the roads and to train drivers and passengers. What concerns us about the clause is that the scale of the punishment does not meet the seriousness of the crime.
I invite any member of the Committee who has not done so to ask Network Rail to provide them—it will be happy to do so—with the DVD briefing that deals with the problems caused by motorists not obeying traffic signals at level crossings. It is the most scary and disturbing DVD that people could watch. There is the driver who decides that he will play chicken with the oncoming train and there is the driver who plays chicken with the barrier descending. There is the driver who goes around the line of traffic and the half-barrier and across the track—the train passes less than three seconds later. There is the driver who goes around the line of traffic on to the railway line, sees an oncoming train and reverses into the front car in the line of traffic. This is a serious offence, committed with intent. It is not a careless act, and it is time for us to recognise that.
If the Government are serious about catching hardened criminals and continual offenders and those people who act with the intent to endanger the lives of others on our roads, it is time to increase the penalties. Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 would give magistrates considerably more flexibility. Six months is not sufficient, 12 months would be more appropriate. This offence is as dangerous to public safety as drink-driving is, and, therefore, it requires the same period of disqualification.
Amendment No. 76 is slightly different in intent and effect, and I suspect that given what the Minister intends to do with clause 51, we will reach some agreement. If a person causes malicious damage to a bridge, it is an offence. However, if someone causes damage to a bridge by skidding on black ice, which might be considered to be driving without due care and attention, it does not seem right that that person should be subject to imprisonment. It is worth combining amendment No. 76 with amendments Nos. 74 and 75 because it highlights the seriousness of the offences listed in clause 50, and it is the intention of amendments Nos. 74 and 75 to increase the penalties for these most serious of offences.

Paul Rowen: In our earlier sittings, we discussed reckless and careless driving. The crux of the Bill is road safety, and the clauses we are debating today concern an area—cars coming into contact with railway lines—that has not had much attention in the past. If a train were carrying several hundred people, it would be extremely difficult for it to stop quickly, and, therefore, railway signals on roads are there for a purpose. There have been several well-documented examples of drivers ignoring those signals and causing accidents. In one sense, an accident to themselves could be considered their own fault, but more importantly, as we acknowledged when we discussed reckless and careless driving, they are potentially putting several hundred people at risk. That is as serious as some of the offences we discussed earlier, such as driving without insurance or a licence.
It is important, as the hon. Gentleman said, that we treat this with the same degree of seriousness as drink-driving. In many respects, it is more serious. Potentially, more people are at risk, and that is why it is important that amendment No. 74 be made. It sends a clear message, particularly as we expand and build in a greater number of areas. There will be more traffic travelling over the crossings, and people must know that a severe penalty will be administered if they attempt to jump a crossing light.

Owen Paterson: I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats support our amendment. The hon. Member for Rochdale is absolutely right. This is part of our campaign to bear down on the hardcore offenders. I raised this local element on Second Reading but I would like to remind the Minister that the number of instances seems to be astonishing. According to the British Transport Police, there have been 70 incidents in Shropshire in the past 12 months, and that county has, sadly, less busy railways than other parts of the country.
Inspector Derek Cheetham of British Transport Police said:
“We continue to receive reports of vehicle drivers misusing railway level crossings in Shropshire. In 2005, 73 offences were reported involving motorists ignoring the red flashing lights, driving over the crossing, zigzagging across as the barriers are in the process of lowering and even colliding with the lowering barriers.”
That is criminal stupidity and not only puts at risk the person involved and his passengers but can put those who are completely innocent in the path of an oncoming train. I hope that the Minister will support the Opposition parties in wanting to get tough on such criminally stupid behaviour.

Stephen Ladyman: There is some common ground among us here. As the hon. Gentleman said, the behaviour in question is criminally stupid. None of us would have a moment’s sympathy for drivers who treat level crossings in such a manner; there can be no excuse for it. It is the most hideously stupid and horrendous act imaginable of callous disregard for other people’s lives.
The hon. Member for Rochdale inadvertently put his finger on the reason why we should not support the amendments, however. As he described, and as in the case of the offences that we discussed earlier in the Committee, these offences are dangerous driving. They go beyond the offence of just jumping a red light; they clearly involve a dangerous disregard for the lives of other people on the road. They should be treated as such, and people who commit them should be prosecuted for dangerous driving with all the penalties that that can bring.
I am again going to advise the Committee not to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill and to turn down the amendments. I assure Opposition Members that I am prepared to take other action that does not necessarily need legislation. Under the terms of the Bill, we will have further consultation about graduated penalties. I am prepared to offer the Opposition the concession—they are entirely right to highlight this issue—that we will include in that consultation the possibility of increasing the penalty for jumping a red light at a level crossing to £5,000 and six penalty points.
I am also prepared to discuss with the Home Office whether it would be appropriate to change the sentencing guidelines to recognise the seriousness of offences committed at level crossings above and beyond the seriousness with which the courts currently consider them. I stand firm on the principle that when somebody is responsible for jumping across a level crossing when the train is coming, if the police have evidence, that person should be tried for dangerous driving with all the penalties that it brings to bear.
The final assurance that I am prepared to give Opposition Members is that I will discuss with the Association of Chief Police Officers its attitude to such offences at level crossings, to trying to enforce them more rigorously than at the moment and to having a campaign to crack down on them. In so doing, we might demonstrate that it would be more appropriate to use such offences as dangerous driving when people are guilty of such activity.

Owen Paterson: I would be reassured if we were getting prosecutions, but I cited a local situation: there have been 73 cases in Shropshire that have not led to prosecutions for dangerous driving. Why is the current law not being used?

Stephen Ladyman: That is exactly the point with which I was going to conclude. I do not know whether those involved in the 73 incidents to which the hon. Gentleman refers were prosecuted at all, even for jumping a red light. That offence is already available and it is not being used. If such things are happening at level crossings—the evidence that he and Network Rail have provided clearly shows that they are happening—we need to do something more about enforcement. There is no point worrying about the level of the offence if even the current offences are not being properly used. I want to talk to the Association of Chief Police Officers about what we need to do to ensure that greater efforts are made to catch people who jump the lights at level crossings.

David Kidney: Since my hon. Friend is talking about enforcement and looking ahead to new clause 30, may I ask whether it is possible to install safety cameras at crossings to record people who jump the lights? Does new clause 30 make it clear whether Network Rail or local authorities will pay for them?

Stephen Ladyman: Yes. The red lights at a level crossing are exactly the same as red lights anywhere else, and they have the same status, so enforcement can be done by CCTV. We will come to the matter of who will pay later in our considerations, but I assure my hon. Friend that the responsibility will be clear when we have finished debating the Bill.
We should clamp down on those who commit this offence and work with the police, Network Rail and the British Transport police to catch people doing it. When there is a clear and callous disregard for human life, the offenders should be prosecuted for dangerous driving, and we will consider in the consultation the possibility of imposing a much steeper fine for a less serious offence. It would be worth discussing the imposition of six points in such cases.
With the assurance that I intend to try to crack down on such incidents, I hope that Opposition Members will not press the amendment and join me in removing the clause from the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: I have given great thought to what the Minister said. He and the Committee recognise the seriousness of the offence.
The Minister’s concessions will go to another round of consultations, but we are concerned about the hard core who commit the offence and about the lack of action now and when the Bill comes into force, and the potential delay. We feel that a term of imprisonment would be appropriate for this offence.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 50 disagreed to.

Clause 51

Increase of penalties for careless or inconsiderate driving causing damage to a railway or other bridge over a road

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 51 disagreed to.

Clause 52

Measures to promote road safety at railway and other bridges

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: This is another eminently sensible clause. We want to ensure that we put in place preventive measures that reduce the risk of incidents at railway or other bridges crossing highways by requiring local authorities to install warning systems. The clause is a sensible preventive measure and the Opposition are happy to support it.

Stephen Ladyman: Once again, my advice will be that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. Local authorities already have powers to restrict certain types of traffic on certain roads and to put in place all the necessary measures to protect bridges. The fact that powers are not being used is no good reason for us to legislate to provide more powers which presumably will be just as little used. We need to ensure that local authorities and others are aware of their duties and their powers and that they use them more rigorously in future. I entirely agree with the intent behind the clause, but it is not necessary and we can achieve its objective with the existing laws.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 52 disagreed to.

Clause 53

Power to impose requirements on traffic authorities as regards protective equipment at level crossings

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clause stand part.
Government amendment No. 111.
Government new clause 30—Safety arrangements at level crossings.

Stephen Ladyman: Once again, I recommend that the clause does not stand part of the Bill. I hope, however, that the Committee will support new clause 30 and amendment No. 111.
This group of clauses is well intentioned. Every one of us agrees with the intent behind them. As we said, drivers who try to go through level crossings need to be dealt with severely, and we must think much more clearly about what protective measures and other measures are appropriate at level crossings. The clauses represent a cri de coeur by Network Rail, which felt that people were not listening to it when it identified the need to improve level crossings. I take full responsibility for that, although I wish that it had come to me first, rather than tabling amendments. We could have helped each other to arrive at the Government’s new clause, rather than the group of clauses inserted in the Lords.
There was a difference of opinion between the Government’s lawyers and Network Rail. Network Rail felt that the current legislation did not specify clearly enough the duty of local authorities to help it make level crossings safe. Equally, it felt that when deciding what measures to put in place, there was a legal dispute about what constituted rail equipment and road equipment. The Government’s view was that the law was clear and that there were responsibilities on local authorities as well as Network Rail. However, when we discussed the legislation with Network Rail, we realised that it could be drafted more clearly so that everyone understands their responsibilities. Hence, new clause 30 makes it clear who is responsible for safety at level crossings and who is required to work with Network Rail to devise and provide new measures for making level crossings safer.
In some cases, those measures will include rumble strips to remind drivers how fast they are going as they approach a level crossing. In others, the measures might be as simple as improved signage on the approach or the provision of CCTV for better enforcement at a level crossing. Whatever measures are necessary must be provided to make level crossings safe, and everybody responsible for providing that equipment must realise that they have a duty to work together to devise and put in place safe arrangements.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), I am pleased to say that in case there was any doubt about whether the new arrangements would fall on the council tax payer, Network Rail has agreed to pay for any improvements identified as a result of the new clause. However, it will still be the responsibility of local authorities to help implement the improvements and to work with Network Rail to design them and make level crossings much safer.

David Kidney: From new clause 30, I see that the Secretary of State may make an order under the Level Crossings Act 1983. I am always annoyed with myself for not doing my research in sufficient depth, but will my hon. Friend assure us that CCTV cameras or safety cameras fall within the definition of “protective equipment” under the 1983 Act?

Stephen Ladyman: Not being the lawyer that my hon. Friend is, I am always slow to give such assurances. It is my intention that such equipment should fall within the 1983 Act. If it does not, and for some reason CCTV cannot be provided because of the way in which our new clause is drafted, I shall seek to deal with that at the remaining stages. My understanding is that new clause 30, together with amendment No. 111, will allow CCTV enforcement systems to be provided at level crossings in exactly the way he seeks.

David Kidney: When my hon. Friend was explaining new clause 30, he said that the Secretary of State would be able to order anything that he thought necessary to make level crossings safer. Things other than safety cameras might not be covered by the 1983 Act as they should be. Will he extend his research to ensure that we are fireproof on this matter?

Stephen Ladyman: I am certainly happy to do that. My understanding is that one of the difficulties that we got into was that the legislation called for rail equipment to be provided and therefore there was a problem defining exactly what “rail equipment” was. Equipment specifically to do with the road might not be covered by the term “rail equipment”. Our proposals now make it clear that rail equipment in this regard means equipment necessary to make the railway safe. Therefore, such things will fall within the legislation’s remit, and I hope the Committee agrees on that. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that I shall double check that before we reach the remaining stages, because it is our intention that all parties that have a responsibility to make the railway safe use their powers to do so and co-operate in ensuring that appropriate designs are agreed so that we can make progress.
I just reiterate that none of us in the Committee is in any disagreement about the need to make level crossings safe or about the heinous nature of offences where people try to drive across such crossings. New clause 30 and amendment No. 111 will be an effective way of dealing with the problem, along with the assurances I gave earlier about enforcement, on which we will make progress as rapidly as possible. I cannot speak for Network Rail, but my understanding is that it is content with what we propose. Given that, I hope that the Committee will subsequently support the Government proposals and agree to clause 53 not standing part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: As I understand it from the Minister’s explanation, new clause 30 tidies up and makes more specific the responsibilities in clause 53. To that extent, I suspect that the proposal is largely welcome. I hope that he will cast some light on amendment No. 111. Why do we need to repeal the words “barriers or other”? What is the intention of the amendment?
The other problem with new clause 30 is that while it introduces a number of preventive measures, it does not achieve what we were aiming to do in terms of examining the failure to stop at traffic lights. The Minister gave assurances about consultation, saying that it would be tackled by his subsequent amendments. I am unsure whether anything in new clause 30 does anything to tackle the problem that we tried to highlight.

Stephen Ladyman: As far as the latter point is concerned, my reference to stricter enforcement and to increased penalties does not relate directly to new clause 30, but to powers elsewhere in the Bill where we have already agreed that we can increase penalties if appropriate and that we can increase the number of endorseable points that someone can get on their licence if they commit a particular offence. One of the assurances sought by the Conservatives was that there should be a thorough consultation about graduated penalties before we debated the matter properly in Committee and before the House took a position on it. That is why there will have to be a consultation process and further debate in the House. I do not believe, however, that that will unnecessarily delay increasing the penalties in a way that the hon. Member for Wimbledon might fear.
Based on the experience of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, it is not so much a question of whether the penalties are right at the moment, but that they are not being imposed at all because people are not being caught jumping traffic lights at level crossings. Those involved in the 73 incidents that he mentioned have not been penalised at all. We can get to grips with that situation straight away while discussing the increase in the seriousness of the penalties that can be incurred when someone is caught.
If I judge the mood of the Committee correctly, and if that mood is reflected by the mood of the House when the consultation is over, I suspect we will have no difficulty agreeing more severe penalties for those who commit offences at level crossings. The penalties in respect of dangerous driving and the definitions of dangerous and careless driving are already on the statute book, and the police can already catch people for such offences and prosecute them.
New clause 30 deals with a different aspect, which is to clarify who is responsible for making level crossings safe. Network Rail was concerned about the identification of improvements needed at particular level crossings. Such improvements had to be implemented by the highway authority, which was usually the local council, and the highway authority was not prepared to engage with Network Rail in discussing design improvements and the provision of equipment, either because it thought it would cost money or because it did not see it as a priority for its road system. Network Rail was left in the frustrating position of having identified a problem that could be dealt with by some sort of engineering solution or the provision of safety equipment, while being unable to get the highway authority, which was legally the body that had to provide that equipment, to take the necessary action.
The new clause will determine that local authorities have such a duty to engage with Network Rail and that they have the duty to provide equipment when it has been identified as the appropriate equipment necessary to make conditions safe. Network Rail has said that it will pay for the process so local authorities do not need to be concerned about getting involved. It will clearly not be a burden on the council tax payer.
We are also making the definition of equipment clearer. It is not just going to refer to equipment specific to the railway; it can be equipment specific to the process of making the railway safer. Such equipment might otherwise be better defined as road equipment. I am advised that the term “barriers” is to be removed as part of the process of making it clearer that equipment that can be provided will not just come from a prescriptive list of equipment appropriate to the railway. Instead, there will be a much wider definition including equipment more akin to that used to control traffic movement on the road. That will make the legislation clearer from the point of view of the local authorities and Network Rail, which will have to work together on the redesign of some level crossings following the implementation of the Bill.
I hope that that is the reassurance that the hon. Member for Wimbledon seeks and that he will support the Government’s position.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 53 disagreed to.

Clause 54

Stopping up and diversion of crossings

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 54 disagreed to.

Clause 55

Stopping up of roads crossing railways

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 55 disagreed to.

Clause 56

Vehicles modified to run on fuel stored under pressure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson: I will not detain the Committee for too long. Clause 56 seems to be a sensible measure, and anyone who has seen the old films of the R101 and the Hindenburg blowing up will know that these fuels are of an extraordinarily explosive nature.
A constituent of mine, Mr. Bill Smith, converts vehicles in a process known as retro-conversion. Since 2000, he has converted regular motor cars, usually fuelled by petrol, to run on a form of liquid petroleum gas. I have discussed the process with him, and he makes the valid point that if a person decides to change his or her gas boiler at home, he or she must call in a Corgi-accredited engineer. I am sure, Sir Nicholas, that you are a qualified engineer. If you wanted to convert your petrol car to run on LPG, you could go on the internet tonight, buy the necessary bits, stick them in, and the car would run—possibly safely, possibly not. Apart from a voluntary code of practice laid down by the LP Gas Association, covering the installation, there is absolutely no recognised procedure to check the conversion. It is, therefore, a completely unregulated activity, dealing with increasingly used fuels that are of an explosive nature. It seems sensible that these fuels be regulated as is suggested in clause 56.
Mr. Smith made another germane point to me: the current MOT test requires the vehicle to pass an emission test only for the fuel that it is running on when presented for the test. If it is LPG, its required emission performance is much lower than that of a car with the original petrol system. It seems sensible—it could be covered by the regulations under subsection (4)—for the Minister to consider checking when an MOT test is carried out that it is carried out for both fuels if a vehicle has been retro-converted. Apart from that, the proposal is sensible and the Conservative party supports it.

Stephen Ladyman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it is a sensible measure. I was pretty horrified, as I think he was, to discover that a car could be modified so as not to be inspected and could go out on a public road. We need to move rapidly on that and to ensure that modified cars are inspected. As he says, we must ensure that the annual MOT test takes into account the fact that such cars have been modified. I am not entirely certain what the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is, but I shall undertake to check that the MOT includes that in the future, and that the change gives us the necessary powers to ensure that it takes place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57

Powers to regulate transport of radioactive material

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson: Briefly, the clause is a sensible technical change, and we support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Private hire vehicles in London

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: We are making good progress, and I shall not detain the Committee for too long. We have heard the Minister argue several times that parts of the Bill are not necessary because their impact is already apparent or because they would be detrimental. I argue that clause 58 is unnecessary.
As the Minister knows, the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 was introduced to regulate private hire vehicles or minicabs in London. The problem with that Act has been the three words “to the public”. A number of private hire vehicle operators and drivers who provide their services on a contract basis say that those vehicles are not available to the public and therefore should not be covered by the Act. That seems relatively appropriate. They are not saying that their whole fleet should not be covered by the Act or that their drivers should not be Criminal Records Bureau checked. They are merely saying that those vehicles hired on a contract basis—usually to local authorities to provide special transport for those in particular need or for schools or educational establishments—should not be covered.
Private hire vehicle operators provide a valuable public service. Their cars are not available strictly to the public, but they are in use for the public benefit. The 1998 Act works extremely well. The clause is unnecessary, and I hope that the Government will think again about why they feel the need for it.

Stephen Ladyman: One’s parents often say, “Be careful what you wish for.” On Second Reading, colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench asked me to consider why we are making this provision in London. I met one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues and a constituent of his to discuss a particular issue related to the one that we are discussing. I granted him his wish and considered the issue, and the more I looked at it, the more I came to see why this level of regulation is required in London. I equally came to see that the problem may be not that we are moving to a system of regulation in London but that we do not have the same powers of regulation everywhere else in the country. It is possible that your constituents and mine outside London, Sir Nicholas, are not getting the protection that they deserve.
I have started to put in place discussions inside the Department and with local authorities on whether we need at some point in the future to improve the way in which we regulate services outside London. However, that will be in the future. I cannot see any excuse for our not moving as rapidly as possible to deal with the problem inside London. It was intended for it to be dealt with by the 1998 Act, but unfortunately the lawyers subsequently decided that that Act was insufficiently clear. The amendment simply makes it clear, so that the 1998 Act works in the way in which it was intended to work and can accordingly be enforced. I have to accept that there is an anomaly between London and elsewhere at which we need to start looking sometime in the future, but that is not an excuse for not dealing with the problem in London.

Stephen Hammond: I am at a loss to understand what extra regulation is needed. We are considering people who are under contract to local authorities, schools and hospitals. They will inevitably have been CRB checked and their vehicles will be compliant with insurance and MOT requirements. They are reputable minicab and private hire firms not available for public service and the extra level of licensing that the Minister wants is unnecessary.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman says that they will inevitably be CRB checked. If it turns out that outside London they are always CRB checked, that the check is always carried out to an enhanced level and that the concerns raised by the Bichard inquiry have properly been dealt with under the current legislation, we will not have a problem outside London.
We have had a serious debate in the past 12 months on the implementation of Bichard. The Opposition, like the whole House, have made it clear that they regard ensuring that we live up to 100 per cent. of the recommendations of Bichard as a very high priority, as do the Government. I certainly do not intend to be the Minister who falls short of that mark, which is why I feel that I have to review the situation outside London. The amendment will help London to achieve the level of regulation that was intended in the first place. That is why we should move ahead and agree to the clause.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 59 and 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6

Repeals and Revocations

Amendment made: No. 111, in page 126, line 25, at end insert—

Short title and chapter

Extent of repeal
Level Crossings Act 1983 (c.16)
In section 1—
(a) in subsection (3)(b), the words “barriers or other”, and
(b) in subsection (11), the definition of “local authority”.'.
—[Dr. Ladyman.]

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 61 and 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63

Extent

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 59, line 25, leave out ‘Section 15 extends' and insert
‘Sections 11(3) and 15 and Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles) extend'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

Clause 63, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64

Short title

Stephen Ladyman: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 59, line 32, leave out subsection (2).
Their lordships cannot spend money so as a constitutional nicety they have a clause in the Bill saying that there is no money to be spent. Of course, that must be removed by the Commons, which is what the amendment does.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 64, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 4

Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles
‘(1) In section 99A of the Transport Act 1968 (c.73) (powers to prohibit driving of vehicles in connection with contravention of provisions about drivers' hours), after subsection (5) insert—
“(6) Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles) to the Road Safety Act 2006 makes provision about the immobilisation of vehicles the driving of which has been prohibited under subsection (1) of this section and about their removal and disposal.”
(2) In section 3 of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 (c.27) (prohibition on driving of foreign vehicles: enforcement provisions), after subsection (7) insert—
“(8) Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles) to the Road Safety Act 2006 makes provision about the immobilisation of vehicles the driving of which has been prohibited under section 1 of this Act and about their removal and disposal.”
(3) In section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) (prohibition on driving of unfit or overloaded vehicles: supplementary provisions), after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles) to the Road Safety Act 2006 makes provision about the immobilisation of vehicles the driving of which has been prohibited under section 69 or 70 of this Act and about their removal and disposal.”.'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Compulsory surrender of old-form licences
‘(1) In the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52), after section 98 insert—
“98A Compulsory surrender of old-form licences
(1) The Secretary of State may by order require the holders of licences of a specified description, or any specified description of the holders of such licences, to surrender the licences and their counterparts to the Secretary of State.
(2) An order under this section may specify as the description of licences to be surrendered—
(a) licences which are not in the form of a photocard, or
(b) licences in the form of a photocard of a description no longer specified by the Secretary of State as a form in which licences are granted.
(3) An order under this section must specify the date by which the licences to which it relates (and their counterparts) are to be surrendered; and may specify different dates in relation to different descriptions of licence holders.
(4) An order under this section must include provision for the grant of a new licence to every holder of a licence surrendered (with its counterpart) in pursuance of the order who—
(a) pays such fee (if any) as is specified by the order, and
(b) provides the Secretary of State with such evidence or further evidence as the Secretary of State may require (which may include a photograph which is a current likeness of him).
(5) A replacement licence granted pursuant to provision made by virtue of subsection (4) above expires on the date on which the surrendered licence would have expired had it not been surrendered (but subject to subsection (6) below).
(6) Where the period for which the surrendered licence was granted was based on an error with respect to the licence holder's date of birth such that (if the error had not been made) that licence would have been expressed to expire on a different date, the replacement licence expires on that different date.
(7) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with any requirement to surrender a licence and its counterpart imposed by an order under this section is guilty of an offence.
(8) An order under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different cases, and
(b) contain such incidental and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(9) The power to make an order under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(10) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State must consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit.
(11) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
(2) In Schedule 1 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c.53) (offences to which certain sections apply), after the entry relating to section 94A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) insert—
“RTA section 98A(7)
Driving licence holder failing to surrender licence and counterpart.
Section 6 of this Act.”
(3) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts), after the entry relating to section 96 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) insert—
“RTA section 98A(7).
Driving licence holder failing to surrender licence and counterpart.
Summarily.
Level 3 on the standard scale.
”.'.
—[Dr. Ladyman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Stephen Ladyman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 6—Fee for renewal of photocard licence and issue of certain alternative licences.

Stephen Ladyman: We are making good progress, and I hope that we can continue to do so.
Government new clauses 5 and 6 return to the Bill two clauses that were removed in the Lords. I like to think that that was because the Lords were mistaken in their intent, and that had they heard my arguments, they would not have done so. I hope that the Committee will agree to put them back in.
The fact is that there are in circulation not just photocard licences—licences with drivers’ pictures on them, each accompanied by a piece of paper establishing the driver’s details and any endorsements that he carries—but licences held by people who have never received a photocard. They have only paper licences and, therefore, have no photographic identification to establish that they may drive particular vehicles, which can present the police with considerable problems. When they stop somebody and are presented with a perfectly valid driving licence in the form of a piece of paper, they have no way of determining whether the person handing them that piece of paper is the person who is entitled to that driving licence.
It was our intention that the Bill would enable us to require, at various points in the future, the return of those paper driving licences, and the issuing in their place of photo ID card-type licences. Their lordships, mistakenly, I can assure the Committee and them if they are listening, thought that that might be a cunning plot to introduce the ID card by the back door, so they removed these clauses from the Bill. I assure the Committee that it was not an attempt to do any such thing. The driving licence is not designated as a document that one cannot receive without having first applied for an ID card. This is a sensible measure to improve law enforcement and to ensure that somebody who presents a driving licence is the holder of that licence.
As well as allowing the Government to charge for the process of changing licences at various times in the future, the clause will give the Government the power, if the licence changes again, to require people once again to submit their old licences in exchange for new-format ones. If, for instance, we decide in future to add a further security device to the driving licence, to make it even more secure and to try to improve the integrity of the database, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire requested, we will be able to do that under these new powers. In addition, the Committee agreed earlier that the paper part of the driving licence—the so-called counterpart—is no longer the legal document. In fact, the database of the DVLA will be the legal document for enforcement purposes in future.
One of the things that we will be able to do will be to require people to return their old paper licences, and to receive photo ID card-type licences. We will also be able to require people to return their existing photo ID card-type licences and to receive in return licences that include information about endorsements and so on—if that is what we wish to do—and to get rid of the counterpart. These are sensible measures. They will improve road safety and the enforcement of driving licences, and will help the police immeasurably. They will also help to improve the integrity of the DVLA database and they are in no way a Trojan horse that will allow ID cards to be introduced without the approval of Parliament.

Owen Paterson: The new clause was given a thorough airing in another place, where there were real fears that it was a Trojan horse for identity cards. My main concern is that this will be a huge task. We have already discussed the burden that the DVLA has because of the way that it is constituted, and we established that it is not 100 per cent. accurate. We also established the difficulty in other countries of getting an accurate database.
I am not sure what the gain will be, although it is clear that the establishment of a valid, water-tight database is important. My worry is that we will go to huge efforts regurgitating data from that vast majority of law-abiding people whose records are not out of order. There will be a titanic administrative task, but in the meantime my party’s fears about what we call the hard core—that small group of people who have come up again and again in our debates, who are outside the law, who drive uninsured and without MOTs or licences—will not be addressed. Those are the people whom we should be after.
My worry about the proposal is that it will involve an enormous administrative effort by the DVLA to change everyone’s paper licence when well over 98 or 99 per cent. of people are thoroughly law abiding. Their records are in order and they will not cause a problem. I wonder how many staff will be involved in the exercise. Will the DVLA engage a whole new section? Will it have a new budget? How long will the process take?
We detect the hidden hand of the European Union, which has taken competence in this area. It proposes that licences should be renewed every 10 years for drivers up to the age of 65 of mopeds, motor cycles, cars and light vans, and every five years for drivers of medium and large goods vehicles, mini-buses, buses and coaches. It has been said that the proposed new measure will have the potential for administrative and customer service advantages, and that it would facilitate greater accuracy of the record and of the data on the licence. That may be right, once the DVLA gets to dry land, but it will be an enormous exercise getting there.
I would like the Minister to comment, first, on the mechanics—how this will be done, how many people will be involved, how long it will take—and, secondly, on the Commission’s proposal that licences should be changed every 10 years for those up to 65. In fact, the recommendation is that they should be changed every five years for drivers over 65 of mopeds, motorcycles, cars and light vans, and every year for drivers over 65 of medium and large goods vehicles, mini-buses, buses and coaches. That will lead to an enormous churning of data about people who act within the law. They are not the bad lads whom we should be trying to catch. I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on that before we pass judgment on the new clause.

Stephen Ladyman: The proposal certainly will involve a huge task—there is no question about that. The intention is that the DVLA will deal with it as a one-off exercise over two years. We estimate that in 2008 there will be some 13 million paper licences still in circulation that will have to be changed over the two-year period.
The new licences will not be free. A small charge will have to be made for them, and that is covered in the new clauses. We estimate that it will be about £5 to £10.

Owen Paterson: A stealth tax.

Stephen Ladyman: It is not a huge amount of money, but the benefits to society will be considerable. As I explained earlier, it is a common offence to present a paper licence to a policeman if one does not hold a licence oneself. Providing a paper licence and not giving the policeman an opportunity to check any identification is a good way of getting around law enforcement, and the police are clear that they want photographic ID.
The hon. Gentleman will also be well aware that the driving licence is seen by many people as the first step on the ladder to creating a false identity. There are people who, for nefarious purposes, want to build an artificial identity for themselves—some because they should not be in the country and others because they want to avoid their obligations or avoid law enforcement. The driving licence is a first step; once a person gets any sort of driving licence it is easy to deal with several organisations and obtain further items of correspondence addressed to them, creating the aura of identity that can be used to fool law enforcement.
It is very important—I think all members of the Committee would agree that it is essential—that we can rely on driving licences and that the police can check that a person is a genuine holder of such a licence. One of the best ways to achieve that is to make it possible to check the holder’s face against the photocard. It will be possible, under the relevant powers, at some point in the future, to require people to return the card for updating—perhaps every 10 years. I suspect that not many people would be able to identify me had they seen a photograph of me 10 years ago. We all change in our visual appearance. It is therefore important that we should have the power to update the licence. The measure is a sensible one. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is in no way related to the issue of ID cards and that he will support the new clauses.

Paul Rowen: I do not know whether I should declare an interest as the holder of one of the old-style paper records. Initially, when I heard the Minister speak I wondered what all the concern was about. However, having listened to his answers to the points made by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, I became concerned. We are told that the measure is to help the Government. Then we are told, “Oh, there is to be a small charge.” We are then told that licences will have to be renewed every five or 10 years depending on the holder’s age. It does not take much in the way of deduction to see that, although the charge may be reasonable now, future Ministers may increasingly use it as a cash cow for the Department.

Stephen Ladyman: The issue that the hon. Member for North Shropshire raised about renewal every five or 10 years relates to an EU directive which is under discussion. The hon. Member for Rochdale must accept that the European Union has a view on the robustness of licences and the need to ensure that they are enforceable throughout the European Union. The mere fact that something is being discussed does not mean that it will immediately be implemented.

Paul Rowen: I accept the Minister’s point, but I am sometimes sceptical enough about the EU to believe that we should not necessarily always implement everything that Brussels bureaucrats want to impose.
Cost is an issue, and so is the fact that the cost can be increased over time. Another thing that causes me concern is the provision to increase the amount of information stored on the card. We have had the debate on ID cards. It will not be that difficult, when the measure is enacted, for all sorts of information to be stored on a microchip on the card. Either people have one ID card or they do not; we should not then go about increasing the amount of information about citizens that is stored on other bits of paper. I have my old licence and can provide many other pieces of information to demonstrate who I am. I can be required by a policeman to go to the police station to provide that information. I cannot see why that is not sufficient.

Stephen Ladyman: If the hon. Gentleman feels that way about ID cards he should have voted with the Government when he had the opportunity. That was the point that we made. However, he did not, and the simple fact of the matter is that the driving licence, as I, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Transport have said, will not be part of the ID card system. However, if the hon. Gentleman cannot understand the need for the new clause, I would ask him to imagine that he was a policeman. If somebody handed a policeman a paper licence, what right would that policeman have to require that individual to go to a police station to show the licence that he had just shown? That person’s paper licence might be a forgery or might not belong to them, and that would be the only opportunity that the policeman had to catch that person. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about the example that he gave, he will understand why he should vote for the Government’s new clauses.

Paul Rowen: I understand the Minister’s point, but I do not agree with him. There are safeguards. I return to the point made by the hon. Member for North Shropshire that the vast majority of people are honest and law abiding. We are talking, however, about a vast bureaucratic exercise—the Minister admitted that it will involve 13 million licences—the benefit of which might apply only in a tiny fraction of cases. The public will, however, be required to pay for it. We have to ask whether the benefits will outweigh the costs, but I do not agree with the Minister on that.

Owen Paterson: Like the hon. Member for Rochdale, I am rather moved the other way by the Minister’s words. We have not got to the bottom of the issue of cost, but the exercise is going to be very expensive. Instead, the DVLA could be spending funds on tightening up on the hard core, as we suggested.
The other point that we have not mentioned is that the vast majority of people with paper licences will be in the older section of the population—in which I include myself—and will be more likely to be of a law-abiding tendency, as the hon. Member for Rochdale said. We go on about this, but we want to concentrate on the hard core, who tend to be younger and who will already have been issued with new photo licences.
The Minister did not touch on proposed new section 98A(2)(b), which relates to
“licences in the form of a photocard of a description no longer specified”,
but he did say that some existing photo licences will be recalled. The whole exercise sounds as if it will be even more complicated. It is a bit glib to say that the DVLA will carry out a special concentrated blitz and that everything will take two years. Surely that will cause a massive disruption to the DVLA, and I am not convinced that it is worth the candle.
I entirely sympathise with the Minister’s aim. It would be easier for policemen to check motorists if they all had photo identity cards, but the provisions will catch the older section of the population, who will almost certainly have other forms of identity on them, such as credit cards, so their signatures can be checked. This will be an enormously expensive, complex exercise, with little gain. It seems to be driven by the European Union directive, under which our licences will apparently be changed every 10 years.
The Minister laughed when I blurted out the words “stealth tax”, but there is no doubt that this is another tax on hard-working, law-abiding citizens. I really am not convinced that the Minister has made his case.

Stephen Ladyman: Briefly, it certainly would be a stealth tax if we did not charge people for it, because the cost would then fall on those in the rest of society, who would have to pay higher taxes. If people want to drive, they need to cover the cost of their driving, and a small charge of the order of £5 to £10 for the renewal is entirely reasonable. We have just launched a thorough consultation about the charges the DVLA imposes for renewing licences and for other services that it provides. That consultation has gone through two phases to identify the most appropriate structure for future charging.
However, the simple fact of the matter is that someone who has only a paper licence can drive while disqualified, and the policeman will not know that they are doing so, because they will hand over a piece of paper that looks like a driving licence. People have also used paper driving licences to steal hire cars. They have handed paper licences over to hire car companies, only for it to turn out that they are not the individual concerned. People can also use paper licences to get on the ladder towards creating false identities and being engaged in many types of fraudulent activity. The people who will benefit from new clause 5 are the 13 million honest motorists who currently have paper licences and who in future will be part of the robust licence system, because they will no longer be cheated by the very few people who currently use paper licences to cheat the system.
I strongly advise Opposition Members to think carefully before voting against a measure that is of obvious benefit to the vast majority of people, who are honest. It is a measure that the police clearly want and that all other law enforcement agencies and advisers suggest is necessary. I can understand why the Liberal Democrats would vote against the new clause, because they do not vote for anything on law enforcement. People can do what they like in Liberal Democrat world these days, but I thought that the hon. Member for North Shropshire, on the Conservative Front Bench, would at the very least stand up for an easyand practical, although admittedly large-scale, improvement in the way in which we enforce law and order in this country.

Owen Paterson: If photocards are the answer to all the problems, why must certain existing photocards be withdrawn? We have not got into that.

Stephen Ladyman: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about what withdrawal there is of existing photocards. I am not aware of any withdrawal, unless there are doubts about people’s identity. Following inspiration from above, I can say that there are no plans to recall the existing photocard licences, so I do not know where he got his information from.

Owen Paterson: I got it from proposed new section 98A(2)(b), which refers to
“licences in the form of a photocard of a description no longer specified by the Secretary of State as a form in which licences are granted”.
I am only reading the Minister’s own new clause.

Stephen Ladyman: I am sorry; I did not understand the hon. Gentleman’s question. I thought that I had explained that provision. We are taking the power now, because at various times in future it will be necessary to issue new types of photocard licence. For example, we may wish to put a chip on a photocard licence to prevent it from being copied. Such technology might emerge in future and provide a better way to identify the licence holder. We want to ensure that when we need to change the photocard licence, we have the power to do so. However, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, we will not do so willy-nilly, because there are 34 million vehicles out there and God knows how many people have a driving licence—probably about 40 million. Changing everyone’s driving licence would be a big exercise, but we need, and future Governments will need, the opportunity to do that when it becomes necessary. That is the only reason why the new clause has been drafted in this way.

Owen Paterson: May I return to the question of the length of time? I understand now what the Minister is talking about as regards the withdrawal of existing photocards, but the Commission document that I have seen indicates that, up to the age of 65, people will have their licences changed every 10 years and those over that age will have their licences changed every five years. This is a whole new way of carrying out the exercise. It may be worth while, but it seems to be an enormous churning exercise and I should like the Minister to explain how the DVLA will cope with it. He says that it will have a blitz and that we are talking about a figure of two years for existing paper licences, but we then appear to go into a permanent state of revolution whereby every year we renew large numbers of licences. I am with the Minister on any measure that will bear down on the hard core, but I am worried that this will be an enormously expensive administrative exercise, churning existing information on large numbers of law-abiding citizens.

Stephen Ladyman: Rather than detain the Committee any longer, it is probably best if I write to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee about the mechanics with which we plan to phase in the exchange of licences and the consultation on changes that will be needed.
The hon. Gentleman is gradually coming to realise the merit of the Government’s case. My final point to him is that the hard core whom he is so anxious to get at will immediately be exposed by the measure. They are the ones who will be unable to get a photocard licence and will have to rely on a paper licence until the very last moment. Once a paper licence is no longer legally useful as a driving licence, they are the ones whom the police will instantly be able to recognise when they stop them out on the roads. I hope that he will now support the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

Fee for renewal of photocard licence and issue of certain alternative licences
‘(1) In section 99 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) (duration of licence)—
(a) in subsection (7) (grant of new licence free of charge on surrender of photocard licence after ten years, in cases of error and on change of name or address), omit “and any licence granted under this subsection shall be granted free of charge”, and
(b) After that subsection insert—
“(7ZA) The Secretary of State is not required by subsection (7) above to grant a new licence on the surrender of a licence and its counterpart by a person in pursuance of subsection (2A) above unless the person has paid the fee (if any) which is prescribed; but any other licence under that subsection is to be granted free of charge.”
(2) In section 117A(2)(c) and (3) of that Act (disqualification etc. of holders of Community licences: issue of alternative licences), for “, free of charge,” substitute “, on payment of such fee (if any) as may be prescribed,”.'. —[Dr. Ladyman.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 30

Safety arrangements at level crossings
‘(1) Section 1 of the Level Crossings Act 1983 (c.16) (safety arrangements at level crossings) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (a) of subsection (2) substitute—
“(a) may require the operator of the crossing or the local traffic authority (or both) to provide at or near the crossing any protective equipment specified in the order and to maintain and operate that equipment in accordance with the order;”.
(3) In paragraph (b) of that subsection, after “impose” insert “on the operator”.
(4) In subsection (3)(b), omit “barriers or other”.
(5) In subsection (5)(b), for “include requirements as to” substitute “impose requirements as to protective”.
(6) For subsection (6) substitute—
“(6) The Secretary of State may make an order under this section in respect of a level crossing on being requested to do so by the operator of the crossing or without a request by the operator.
(6ZA) The Secretary of State may not make an order without a request by the operator unless—
(a) he has consulted the Office of Rail Regulation and the local traffic authority about the order he proposes to make; and
(b) having done so, he has sent to the operator, the Office of Rail Regulation and the local traffic authority a copy of a draft of the order he proposes to make and a notice specifying the period (not being less than two months) within which they may make representations to him in respect of his proposal to make the order.”
(7) For subsection (8) substitute—
“(8) Before making a request the operator—
(a) must consult the Office of Rail Regulation and the local traffic authority about the draft order he intends to submit to the Secretary of State; and
(b) having done so, must give written notice to the Office of Rail Regulation and the local traffic authority of his intention to make a request.
(8A) A notice given under subsection (8)—
(a) must be accompanied by a copy of the draft order which the operator intends to submit to the Secretary of State; and
(b) must specify the period (not being less than two months) within which the Office of Rail Regulation and the local traffic authority may make representations to the Secretary of State in respect of the request.”
(8) In subsection (9), for “(6) or (8)” substitute “(6ZA) or (8A)”.
(9) In subsection (11)—
(a) omit the definition of “local authority”,
(b) before the definition of “operator” insert—
““local traffic authority”, in relation to a crossing, means the authority which for the purposes of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is the local traffic authority for the road crossed by the railway at the crossing;”, and
(c) in the definition of “protective equipment”, after “includes” insert “barriers,”.' —[Dr. Ladyman.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Roy.]

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Seven o’clock till Thursday 20 April at Nine o’clock.